W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

RE: [css3-background] color transition line

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:27:02 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170EB02224@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Jul/0005.html
> Currently the only correct option is the third one (t17-ray).
> The goal is
>    - to have both the first (IE's interpretation) and the fourth
>      (preferred by all the actual authors I've asked) be conforming,
>      as well as allowing gradient transitions to be conforming
>    - to meanwhile require that if a border is missing on one
>      side, the entire curve is rendered with the color and style of
>      the other side
>    - and also require that if the border widths are changed, the
>      rendering result is reasonably continuous*
> * it might not be entirely continuous because as more or less dots
>    or dashes fit, there will be discontinuities in the rendering as
>    they are added/removed

Current text:
   # The center of color and style transitions between adjoining borders is
   # at the point on the curve that is at an angle that is proportional to
   # the ratio of the border widths. For example, if the top and right border
   # widths are equal, that point is at a 45 angle from the horizontal, and
Proposed text:
   | If one of these borders is zero-width, then the other border takes up
   | the entire transitional area. Otherwise, the center of color and style
   | transitions between adjoining borders must be proportional to the ratio
   | of the border widths such that a function of its location is continuous
   | with respect to this ratio. However it is not defined what these

My interpretation of both these versions is that markup of the form...
	border-width: 20px;
	border-color: red green blue black;
	border-radius: <border-radius-value>;
...should have a color transition lines at 45 angles (rotated accordingly for corners other than the top right) for any value of <border-radius-value>.

Do you interpret that differently?

Current text:
   # The line demarcating this transition is drawn
   # between the point at that angle on the outer arc and the point at that
   # angle on the inner arc. 

My recollection is that the previous discussion on this topic concluded with different interpretations of this sentence. Let's come back to this in a moment.


Eyeballing the 4 renderings, only the 1st rendering follows (A).

Now let's get back to (B).  Are you suggesting that a valid interpretation of (B) was intended to be in direct conflict with (A)?  That's seems bizarre to me.  Further, the new proposed text reenforces the 45 requirement of (A) and thus makes it even clearer that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th renderings are incorrect.  In fact, with *only* (A) -- i.e. just removing (B) and doing no further editing -- it remains clear that only the 1st rendering is correct.

Put another way...

I think the only interpretations of (B) that should have been considered valid are ones that don't conflict with (A). Further, I think the better course is to consider refining the language of (B) [or just removing the sentence] such that the invalid interpretations are more obviously excluded by (A).

What am I missing?
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:27:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:10 UTC